Forum menu
Now it’s about a different line somewhere else.
No, it's a reporting of the same speech. Suggest it's easier to read the actual speech than interpret someone else's take on what a journalist said about a speech. In fact, I should probably just drop down to posting links to these Labour front benchers' speeches without comment when the usual suspects work so hard to get upset about single phrases pulled out of context (or even new phrases made out of the words used). It just becomes who can bore the most otherwise, with little regard for the truth.
There absolutely are phrases in use by the Labour team to try and move people who think they are "the party of scroungers"... by sounding tough about reducing the number of people out of work while offering actually useful policy to try and reduce the problems people face that end up with them being excluded from the world of work. They'll use these while pointing out the failings of a party that misunderstands what the state is for, and what people need it to do... ie... the current generation of Conservative MPs.
usual suspects work so hard to get upset
You don't do irony do you?
I see Reeves has come out with some BS about it being like 1979 so now trying to somehow link to Thatcher era and get any Thatcher lovers who are still alive excited.
I see Reeves has come out with some BS about it being like 1979 so now trying to somehow link to Thatcher era and get any Thatcher lovers who are still alive excited.
Has she said that, and for those reasons, or are we over reaching again?
Has she said that, and for those reasons, or are we over reaching again?
Of course we are, Labour are worse than tje conserbatives don't ya know.
As for the benefits question, its complex but the bottom line is we have far too many economically inactivite people within our economy and it will need to be reduced. Why they are economically inactive is up for debate but in reality it will be a combination of increased health issues (Covid possibly and a lot of lifestyle), lower tolerance to difficult circumstances, people give up more easily and the prevelance of benefits although it does seem very random, some people seem to do pretty well livong off the state others seem to be in dire poverty.
Generaly life has got a lot better since for example the 60s so why are more people struggling to cope? Its a shift in societal expectations which is good in some respects as it means we should be more compassionate but on the other hand increasing service provision increases demand. Where do we draw the line between people in need and those that are a bit shit at life?
Thats the dilema Labour are facing and with everyone feeling the cost of living squeeze the electorate arent feeling too generous towards those they perceive not to be contributing.
What does it take to realise that Reeves and Labour are shifting right?
At which point do people supporting Labour currently realise they're having the rug pulled from under them them daily? And refusing to criticise this shift into fiscal Conservatism?
It's bizarre.
When was the last time Labour added anything solid to the progressive agenda?
And yet here we all still are fingers crossed.
Country needs money. To ignore that is to play Conservatism at its own game.
(Please don't waste our time with more reform arguments without big cash behind it.)
Generaly life has got a lot better since for example the 60s so why are more people struggling to cope? Its a shift in societal expectations which is good in some respects as it means we should be more compassionate but on the other hand increasing service provision increases demand. Where do we draw the line between people in need and those that are a bit shit at life?
You know when someone has swallowed the Tory cool aid they start talking like this.
Here's a plan - Labour have no reason to not step-up and fix the things the Tories have cultivated instead of following their economic pathway and getting shambolic results.
People that are a bit 'shit' at life often sit at the top of the wealth distribution model and still do okay. Maybe we could make an argument that they've had it too good for too long and need a bit of tax to clip their wealth, power and resources instead of using the OBRs austerity driven models to go after the forecasted 600,000 people that might get spat out because of inequality?
usual suspects work so hard to get upset
You could equally argue the usual suspects are actually the ones that set the agenda in STW for what's consensus opinion and spend all their working day getting upset about the Tories but appear to be ignorant to the Red team's inability to push back on Conservative framing.
What does it take to realise that Reeves and Labour are shifting right?
I'm not sure anyone would dispute this. I think we all have the same concerns and ultimately are aiming for tbe same outcome, a fairer, more equitable and just society.
Some are pursuing a more idealistic "all or nothing and we want it now" approach, others have a more pragmatic "long time to turn the oil tanker approach", and both sides seek reports, or interpret reports, to suit their view.
The problem is, folk on both sides get assertive/aggressive when their view is even doubted, and we end up forming factions, and the politics of division kicks in, the tone and quality of debate plummets. Again.
And round it goes, day after day.
Generaly life has got a lot better since for example the 60s so why are more people struggling to cope? Its a shift in societal expectations
No its not. Whilst there have been improvements in some areas in other areas things have got a lot harder. A lot of gains were made postwar but they have been gradually abandoned either accidentally or deliberately.
Living standards are dropping and whilst in previous generations the youth generally did better than the parents this has now been reversed.
Obviously there are exception to this, mostly those born in the 50-60s who have been living a good life whilst not caring about the ladder being lifted behind them.
The problem for thatcherism is it works great until, as now, you have flogged off all the countries assets cheap and the bills are coming due.
When was the last time Labour added anything solid to the progressive agenda?
The £28 billion green pledge was widely considered to be a progressive proposal.
"Rachel Reeves’ commitment today to £28bn of new investment is in line with IPPR’s proposals. Boosting investment in the UK economy on at least this scale isn’t just good for nature and the climate – it's also sound economics.”
Some are pursuing a more idealistic “all or nothing and we want it now” approach, others have a more pragmatic “long time to turn the oil tanker approach”
Your wording really doesnt help matters does it? The announcement that your position is far more rational and the casual oversimplification of others positions to a "all or nothing".
I would have more faith in the self proclaimed pragmatists arguments if there was any real indication of that long term planning. Even just going to the following election and how they will deal with the inevitable things are still pretty shit and now the tories/reform will play hard on the "its all labours fault and forget what we did to cause it" would be a start.
Your wording really doesnt help matters does it?
Depends how sensitive to perceived criticism you are? I'm not saying my preferred option is correct.
I would have more faith in the self proclaimed pragmatists arguments if there was any real indication of that long term planning
So would I. But I'm not seeing from the other viewpoint either. Which is fair enough, we're a bunch of randoms on the internet, not the World Economic Forum.
Obviously there are exception to this, mostly those born in the 50-60s who have been living a good life whilst not caring about the ladder being lifted behind them.
As a Boomer type I have always cared that the ladder should be available to all. Your generalisation does you no favours and plays into the culture war age we are forced to endure by the current shower.
I was distictly under-impressed by the withdrawal of opportunity by the Blair government when tuition fees were introduced. The start of the current rot and a stain on the supposed party of the people.
Where do we draw the line between people in need and those that are a bit shit at life?
That wording has a very strong tory ****er vibe to it. Why do we need to draw a line and what does drawing the line actually mean - give those who are "a bit shit at life" an even harder time of it and make their lives even shitter.
What about trying to help people not be so shit at life, maybe those who are great at life could help in someway.
plays into the culture war age we are forced to endure by the current shower.
A much better way of phrasing where I was trying to go.
Generaly life has got a lot better since for example the 60s so why are more people struggling to cope?
That is such a strange comment bearing in mind that life has got a lot better than, for example, the 1800s, although one that I am sure Thatcher would approve of.
Since you ask the question let me give you the answer - a massive rise in inequality since the 60s.
45 years of relentless neoliberalism/Thatcherism has resulted in ever growing inequality. The very thing that the Labour Party was created to fight.
"Inequality has made the UK more unhealthy, unhappy and unsafe than our more equal peers,” said Priya Sahni-Nicholas, the co-executive director of the trust. “It is also causing huge damage to our economy: we have shorter healthy working lives, poorer education systems, more crime and less happy societies.”
Britain in the 1970s was one of the most equal of rich countries. Today, it is the second most unequal, after the US.
Better for some is the bit that clearly holds true.
Your generalisation does you no favours and plays into the culture war age we are forced to endure by the current shower.
Sorry I wasnt aware I was expected to fully caveat and footnote everything. I look forward to seeing you do the same.
The start of the current rot and a stain on the supposed party of the people.
Which then leads to the question of exactly what Starmer and co are doing to reverse it.
Which then leads to the question of exactly what Starmer and co are doing to reverse it.
How long will you give them?
How long does it take to reverse this amount of societal-level damage, while not increasing taxation, while not causing inflation, while trying to reverse [in some cases] a decade and a half of under-investment and lack of spending. Some things will need recreating literally from scratch (again).
but the bottom line is we have far too many economically inactivite people within our economy and it will need to be reduced.
Yes lets force people to work in pointless unfulfilling jobs which strips away any last vestige of mental health or sense of worth. I hate to break this to you, but with the AI revolution and automation growing exponentially there's going to be a lot more economically 'inactive' (why inactive? They still spend money) people around so we'd best start getting our heads around it. Of course the labour party won't, unlike the tories they hate the idea of people sitting around idle on benefits and delusionally think work is the main reason for living, but then they've always had an authoritarian streak which comes from their Marxist history. Time to think of new solutions to the 'work' problem, but the labour party won't be the ones to do it.
Britain in the 1970s was one of the most equal of rich countries. Today, it is the second most unequal, after the US.
Given how depressingly shit the 70’s were to live through you aren’t really selling the idea that a more equal society is a nice one to aspire to.
Given how depressingly shit the 70’s were to live through
I've said this before, but this all comes down to the conflict between economic security and individual rights. The 70s was a terrible time for individual rights, homophobia, mysoginy and racism where rife, but people were relatively secure economically. No one had much debt, they had a roof over their heads and access to public services. They also lived in mutually supportive communities where people had a sense of collective responsibility. Now it's the opposite, we have amazing individual rights (despite a few issues), but very little economic security, we're up to the eyes in debt and we live in an individualistic everyone for themselves society. The task for progressive politicians is to combine both, but no one has figured it out yet, largely because we cling on to an economic system which isn't fit for purpose. Witness Rachel Reeves harking back to bloody Thatcher. Utterly clueless.
Which then leads to the question of exactly what Starmer and co are doing to reverse it.
On present evidence I won't be holding my breath.
And one doesn't need to footnote or reference, one does need to choose words with care though (and I' can be as guilty as everyone else for intemperate written language).
How long will you give them?
Its not me thats important (given your explanation of the obvious I am surprised you missed that) but the public as a whole.
So they get five years max.
At which point the hard right will have been banging the populist drum hard and announcing everything bad happened in those five years.
Which is an obvious problem for those who are supporting the do tory policies but slightly less so.
It will leave the country still screwed and help normalise those policies so the tories can go even further next time. As indeed they did after Blair.
So the obvious question is what are they going to get in place which will show things are improving and also not be immediately reversable by the tories.
There is one thing which ticks the box but that seems off the table under Starmer.
Where do we draw the line between people in need and those that are a bit shit at life?
I wonder why people might be shit at life these days? Perhaps because life has become a lot harder to succeed at?
How long will you give them?
How long does it take to reverse this amount of societal-level damage, while not increasing taxation, while not causing inflation, while trying to reverse [in some cases] a decade and a half of under-investment and lack of spending. Some things will need recreating literally from scratch (again).
No one is asking for miracles on day one or even miracles but maybe just have a plan that leans against what has failed.
You talk inflation and taxation - okay so they are linked and inflation created through government spending can be controlled with taxation. If there's too much money and the economy overheats you zap some out with taxation (ideally from the top. boom.)
That's unlikely to happen though as there are far too many areas that can use a bit of resource and labour without overcrowding the private sector.
We're a long way from that though which means wherever there's a gap in infrastructure (a societal deficit if you will) you can allocate government spending to fix it.
The politics is picking the important bit first. Broad strokes - pretty logical to head towards energy and the NHS - in my opinion. And personally for instant-ish fixes I'd be bringing Water into state ownership - and trimming those bills for people. Nothing too Communist about all of that. Just sensible and totally affordable and would get people on side. Then let's have a long term plan for transport/infrastructure investment which I know would take time but the jobs/work it would generate would be much needed. Some Police investment to reverse the Tory cuts. Nothing scary at all. Then you've got housing supply - big issues there to sort out. It's definitely going to take time, but new governments need something in the first 100 days to hit the public with. That's the usual expectation.
If we don't do something even approaching all that expect even worse outcomes.
For Labour to actually pick something would be a start - instead of Reeves framing everything back to front.
Labour just don't seem to recognise the problems need a bottom up approach. They're not even going in that direction and are doomed by using ridiculous economic logic (that growth stems from private sector first before we can spend.)
Until they crack that and put it the right way around we will keeping banging our head against a wall.
All the evidence is out there that we're not even close to optimising how the government provisions itself - to then go on to generate a dynamic private sector that they all want!
Given how depressingly shit the 70’s were to live through
Ah the much loved Tory mantra which people believe because, well because it must true as everyone keeps repeating it.
Even though Tories occasionally boast how things are now as good as they were in the 1970s.
And yet they still get away with it because no one challenges them by saying "hang on a minute, I thought everything was really shit in the 70s?"
And that's just on the issue of people living on unemployment benefits without pointing out that there was also no NHS waiting lists, less inequality, less crime, no pointless foreign wars, etc etc
I wonder why people might be shit at life these days? Perhaps because life has become a lot harder to succeed at?
Life has been shit to them.
"I still firmly believe that even though they haven’t spent even a day in government, Starmer and Reeves are at the centre of all that is wrong with the UK, and more worryingly, the entire planet."
Thank goodness someone understands, comrade
I often wonder if Rachel Reeves wakes up every morning wondering what she can do to futher erode normal people's aspirations for a better life for them or their kids. She's like a policital grim reaper, on a mission to squeeze every last ounce of hope and optimism out of an already depressed and cynical population. I despise her quite frankly, she's the very worst example of a machine politician.
If she can help deliver half of what she outlined in her speech, she'll bring plenty of people hope.
If she can help deliver half of what she outlined in her speech, she’ll bring plenty of people hope.
Come-on we've been here several times and you've enjoyed the defense of the dwindling morsels
I'm not feeling it. You must be on your hands and knees looking for political crumbs Kelvin.
Neo-Thatcherism, only there's nothing left to sell.
I still firmly believe that even though they haven’t spent even a day in government, Starmer and Reeves are at the centre of all that is wrong with the UK, and more worryingly, the entire planet.
Laughable analysis apart from the grimness on offer.
You don't need to exaggerate the point either. Because no one ever said that.
I often wonder if Rachel Reeves wakes up every morning wondering what she can do to futher erode normal people’s aspirations for a better life for them or their kids. She’s like a policital grim reaper, on a mission to squeeze every last ounce of hope and optimism out of an already depressed and cynical population. I despise her quite frankly, she’s the very worst example of a machine politician.
Yep. And I can't for the life of me see any defence in anything she's ever said.
For a start how do you defend anyone that believes the private sector funds the government? That's a starting point for economic illiteracy. (What would she have done in the pandemic I wonder?)
And she still can't say how the growth will appear. No plan. Nothing.
Here is her hero quote to the BBC:
"Unless you get growth...you're always going to have to make almost impossible trade offs", Ms Reeves told the BBC."
Total horseshit. What she even talking about?
"In her speech, the shadow chancellor is expected to confirm new details about Labour's approach to controls on borrowing, the setting of interest rates by the Bank of England and how it would return the economy to long term growth"
We all wait for this one.
Maybe labour should be called Reform too? They're using the word a lot.
"And that’s just on the issue of people living on unemployment benefits without pointing out that there was also no NHS waiting lists, less inequality, less crime, no pointless foreign wars, etc etc"
Waiting lists maybe but the rest?
Equality was a long way from what we have today (unless you specifically mean equality of wealth), we were engaged in an anti-communist war in Oman and Northern Ireland was at the height of the troubles. As for crime, there was still plenty of gang violence and unreported abuse going on.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1770168954591592630?t=8S9IFSAQI-CnYqt8N0Wqkw&s=19
Good Christ.
Not just stupid but duplicating stupid.
One simple fact: if government debt is falling then money is being drained out of the economy.
I'm totally convinced that Rachel Reeves doesn't understand anything about our economy such that she is borrowing from a totally flawed and destructive analysis.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1770170631402721377?t=3J3Nd4DlzFFP-DeTIdF42w&s=19
If the actual aim is to get the budget into balance then the economy will stall because day to day spending still needs extra government money.
Appalling.
People will be along in a second to tell us how copying Conservative economic policy is actually good for Labour and the economy.
(Note: successful economies don't run balanced budgets.)
What's really frustrating is they don't have to do any of this.
A cursory google provides plenty of articles that show the 1970's were also shit for the NHS, low staff numbers, unprecedented industrial action and multiple layers of additional bureaucracy as well as climbing mortality for a multitude of ailments.
This is the tory party Rwanda bill that labour have said they will not vote on/abstain from tomorrow, the Labour Party under Keir Starmer are a total ****ing busted flush,
Ah the much loved Tory mantra which people believe because, well because it must true as everyone keeps repeating it
Dunno about you, but I lived through it, so the mantra gets repeated because unfortunately it happens to be true.
[ duplicate post removed - forum pretty borked today ]
“Rwanda bill that labour have said they will not vote on/abstain from tomorrow”
A quick explainer about that:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68599308
TLDR: the Lords will seek to amend, again.
There’s a majority for this bill in the Commons, and against the amendments… the Lords are can only really seek to improve not throw out the legislation (in effect… delay, delay, delay). You need a new government, and a change in the balance of MPs, if you want this policy ultimately blocked or removed.
As for crime, there was still plenty of gang violence and unreported abuse going on.
You took the comment "less crime" as meaning "no crime"?
Yeah there was crime in the 70s, and the 60s were famous for the gang violence of the Krays and the Richardsons, but crime shot up in the 80s under Thatcher - despite their claim of being the party of law and order.
Which is not in the least bit surprising since there is a globally recognised link between the levels of crime and level of inequality in societies.
And no, people didn't have to wait months/years for hospital appointments. It wasn't even necessary to make an appointment with your GP.
Obviously the Tory narrative concerning the 70s, which is used to justify neoliberalism/Thatcherism is too deeply ingrained ingrained in some people's minds to expect people to accept an opposing narrative, especially since "new" Labour goes along with it, so I am not going to change the minds of those who believe it.
But it does intrigue me when those who accept the Tory neoliberal narrative don't seem perplexed at the sight of headlines claiming the lowest levels of unemployment since the 1970s. Unemployment levels has always been seen as a particularly useful gauge of the health of a society. Although not when it is inconvenient apparently.